FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 20 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50314
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:14-cr-00609-CAS-2
v.
CHUNG YU YEUNG, AKA Louis Yeung, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, PARKER,** and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Chung Yu Yeung appeals his sentence following his
conviction of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1344, and to four counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 42. He challenges the special conditions of
supervised release imposed by the district court. We affirm.
Yeung appeals three conditions of supervised release associated with
computer usage, Conditions 8, 9, and 10. Yeung contends that these restrictions are
not reasonable.
We have held that conditions that ban internet or computer use outright or
prohibit computer use without permission from a probation officer were too
restrictive. See United States v. LaCoste, 821 F.3d 1187, 1190–92 (9th Cir. 2016);
United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154, 1160–62 (9th Cir. 2008); United
States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 2007). The conditions here were not
similarly overbroad, however. Yeung was not required to ask permission before
accessing a computer or the internet, only to inform the probation officer which
computers or computer-related devices he was accessing. Similarly, though in
some cases this court has held restrictive conditions on computer use to be too
tangential to the charged crime, see, e.g., Sales, 476 F.3d at 737, that is not the
situation here. Yeung used computers and the internet extensively in furtherance of
his crimes and hid the company’s computers and servers detailing the location of
the company’s inventory once the fraud had been discovered.
2
Yeung also argued that Condition 10 of supervised release was overbroad
since the condition did not clarify whether the computer monitoring program
applied to internet use only or also to general computer use. We have already
concluded that a similar condition applied only to internet usage. United States v.
Quinzon, 643 F.3d 1266, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the government concedes
that Condition 10 only applies to internet usage.
Consequently, we hold that the challenged conditions are consistent with the
principles of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) of protecting the public from further harm and
deterrence. See United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3